Making an impact
Mainstreaming into strategy

Gloucestershire Citizen's Jury

What happened?

After some negative feedback about a 52% increase for the Constabulary in the 2003/2004 Council tax, Gloucestershire Constabulary and the Police Authority decided to run a Citizen's Jury to look at budget setting. People who were not normally involved in policing issues were invited to take part. Over two days, the ‘jury' heard from a series of ‘witnesses' about the budget for 2004/5. They were given a day for deliberation and then made a recommendation to the Police Authority and Constabulary about the police Council Tax increase for 2004/05.

Steps taken to complete the project:

• Identify facilitator
• Identify date for jury
• Identify venue
• Liaison and briefing with chief officers and authority members (this happened several times before the event)
• Sort out financial arrangements for jury members
• Identify and recruit jury members
• Development of briefing pack for jury members (to be read prior to event)
• Liaison with media regarding media coverage
• Jury held over two days
• Write up of event
• Police Authority budget setting meeting, attended by some of the jury members

Who is involved?

The jury: 12 members of the public participated in the jury, some representing organisations such as the Gay and Lesbian Helpline and the Chinese Women's Guild. Others included a pub landlady, a headteacher and a young person, supported by a youth worker.

The witnesses: Constabulary chief officers and members of the Police Authority gave presentations about and answered questions on the budget, threats and opportunities facing the Constabulary, and the processes for deciding upon the budget.

An independent facilitator was employed to work with the jury.

What were the resource requirements?

Financial: the cost of refreshments and payment to jury members (£100) plus travelling expenses; and payment for the facilitator.

Time: the time of chief officers, police authority members and members of the Constabulary's consultation team. The recruitment of jury members was particularly time-consuming (contact was made by the facilitator, but identification of potential members was done by the Constabulary and Authority).

Technical: presentation equipment

What was achieved?

The jury exceeded expectation as a mechanism for engaging with the public about a complex issue. It provided the organisation with an opportunity to explain its budget setting processes, at a level of detail that would have been very difficult with less time. The value of this was seen in the fact that the jury recommended that the council tax be increased by more than had been proposed, because they now had an understanding of the implications.

The project also had some unintended benefits. Although the event was about the budget, jury members made several other recommendations. These related to reform of the Police Authority, the need for more involvement of the public in real and meaningful consultation and engagement on an ongoing basis, the further development of community partnerships, and about how Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and Police and Community Consultative Meetings might be made more effective.

What were the critical success factors for this project?

• Careful and thorough logistical planning
• Agreement that payment would be made to jury members (incentive and recognition of time)
• Having an independent facilitator
• Having a diverse jury (some representing organisations, others representing their local community)
• Holding the event over two days

What challenges were faced or lessons learned?

No difficulties were encountered in terms of the jury process, and it will be considered for other issues in future. The follow-through was more problematic. Members of the jury were invited to the Police Authority budget-setting meeting to see how their recommendation was fed into the debate. Although they acknowledged the value of the jury process, ultimately the authority members voted either politically or in accordance with their own views. Feedback from the jury members was that they were frustrated and disappointed at how little their recommendation featured in the debate, and therefore with the lack of impact their recommendation had made.

At the time of the event, jury members were extremely motivated and enthusiastic about the efforts made by the Constabulary and Authority to engage with them about a contentious issue. However, many felt disenfranchised after the Police Authority meeting. This may have had wider implications on how community members feel about engaging with the organisation.

Although the jury's recommendation had little impact on the outcome of the authority's budget debate, it has ‘sown a seed' in the mind of authority members that members of the public can be supportive of Constabulary and Authority decisions, provided that enough time is invested in engaging with them.

Follow up and evaluation

Members of the jury were provided with an update following the Authority's budget decision. The results were not communicated more widely.

There was no formal evaluation. However, members of the Constabulary's Consultation and Evaluation Unit spoke informally with the jury members and witnesses during and immediately after the event to explore their views. All views at this time (before the Police Authority budget-setting meeting) were very positive.

Although some attempt was made to manage expectations about the degree to which the jury's decision would impact upon the Authority's decision, this may have to be more carefully thought through for future events.

Overall, the citizens' jury was extremely successful as an engagement mechanism. Less successful were the organisational processes to capture the outcome.

Contact: Claire Radley/Jo Wasley, Gloucestershire Police Authority; tel: 01242 276816